Rogue Tory
Page 86
21 Quoted in Wilson, Diefenbaker, 233
22 Ibid., 246
23 Diefenbaker dates the second trial incorrectly; it took place on October 16-17, 1940. OC 1, 184; Prince Albert Herald, October 17, 1940; Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, October 18, 1940; Wilson, Diefenbaker, 252-59
24 JGD to R.J. Manion, wire, January 29, 1940, JGDP, II/1/27, 549
25 The proposal for a coalition was made without notice at the Conservative caucus meeting on January 26, 1940, by Earl Rowe, MP. It received unanimous approval and was publicly announced by Manion immediately afterwards. This caucus also reaffirmed the party’s opposition to conscription for overseas service. Granatstein notes that, since the prospect of a winning alliance with Duplessis in Quebec was already gone, the decision “can only be interpreted, therefore, as reflecting a Conservative desire to maintain national unity and as a reaction to what was believed to be the mood of the electorate.” Granatstein, Survival, 42-47
26 OC 1, 184-92; Wilson, Diefenbaker, 249-52; JGD to W.B Scarth, April 4, 1940; JGD to G.S. Thorvaldson, April 4, 1940; JGDP, II/1/27, 563, 565
27 “John Diefenbaker,” mimeo, nd, JGDP, II/1/27, 804-05. Brownridge had joined the Diefenbaker office as an articling student, but his duties in 1939-40 were mostly political.
28 OC 1, 187-88; Wilson, Diefenbaker, 250-51
29 OC 1, 191-92; Wilson, Diefenbaker, 251-52; Holt, Other, 191-92
30 Mary F. Diefenbaker to JGD, April 1, 1940, JGDP, V/1, 543. Mary’s spelling, punctuation, and syntax have been left (in this and other letters) as in the originals, except that periods in the middle of sentences, where the sense seems to indicate, have been replaced by commas.
31 William T. Diefenbaker to JGD, April 1, 1940, JGDP, V/1, 55-60
32 Keegan, The Second World War, 64-81
33 James Sinclair’s recollections of the meeting are recounted in Holt, Other, 192-93.
34 Quoted ibid., 193
35 Ibid., 194-95
36 Interview with Clyne Harradence, November 3, 1991. According to Harradence, who packed the boxes in Prince Albert in the 1950s, Diefenbaker left most of the files untouched both in Prince Albert and Ottawa.
37 Nicholson, Vision, 28
38 Ibid.
39 R.A. Bell to JGD, March 29, 1940, JGDP, III, 305
40 J.M. Robb to JGD, March 28, 1940, ibid., 555
41 JGD to Mary F. Diefenbaker, April 2, 1940, JGDP, V/1, 304
42 Mary F. Diefenbaker to JGD, April 10, 1940, ibid., 311-12
43 Ottawa Evening Citizen, May 13 and 14, 1940
44 JGD to Mary F. Diefenbaker, May 15, 1940, JGDP, V/1, 316-A-B-C
45 Mary F. Diefenbaker to JGD, May 24, 1940, ibid., 317-19. The reference to “hunks” is garbled. “Bohunk” was an insulting western Canadian epithet for Poles or Slavs, undoubtedly familiar to Mary Diefenbaker. But in this context it is confusing and seems to mean “Huns,” the common pejorative term for the German enemy. The Grits were the Liberal enemy. William Diefenbaker might have cringed at his wife’s references to the “cruel, bloodthirsty nation” of his ancestors, who would get what was coming to them in the end. If her comments reflected a deeper attitude, as the letters suggest, they may help to explain John’s unusual sensitivity over his German surname.
46 OC 1, 193-94
47 Evening Citizen, June 13, 1940
48 House of Commons, Debates, May 27, 1940, 238-39; OC 1, 220-21
49 “Report to the House,” Special Committee on the Defence of Canada Regulations, August 1, 1940, JGDP, III/89, 72083-91. In the cabinet reorganization that followed the death of Norman Rogers, Ilsley become minister of finance on July 8, 1940.
50 OC 1, 195. In the memoirs Diefenbaker does not mention the content of the speech.
51 Debates, June 13, 1940, 748-51
52 The Liberal member for Parry Sound, Arthur Slaght, another nominee to the special committee, also spoke in favour of the death penalty for spies and saboteurs. Evening Citizen, June 13, 1940; “Report to the House,” Special Committee on the Defence of Canada Regulations, August 1, 1940, JGDP, III/89, 72083; “An Act Respecting Treachery,” typewritten draft, containing handwritten comments and amendments in Diefenbaker’s hand, ibid., 71956-63. Diefenbaker spoke in the House in the bill’s support. Debates, July 25, 1940, 1938-40
53 Granatstein, Survival, 58-62; Granatstein, Canada’s War, 98-99; Pickersgill, Mackenzie King Record 1, 102
54 For Diefenbaker’s comments on the House of Commons and its members during the 1940s, see OC 1, 193-272.
55 Debates, February 28, 1941, 1141. In their leaderless and discouraged condition, Conservative MPs even canvassed the possibility of Bennett’s resurrection as party leader. H.A. Bruce wrote twice to Bennett in the autumn of 1940, seeking his agreement to return and noting that George McCullagh, publisher of the Globe and Mail, believed that Bennett was “the one man to strike terror in the heart of Mackenzie King.” Bruce gave up his quest after Lord Beaverbrook told him in January 1941 that Bennett “has settled down in England and made his home in its countryside. And there he means to abide.” H.A. Bruce to Rt Hon. R.B. Bennett, December 6, 1940; Beaverbrook to H.A. Bruce, January 4, 1941, Bruce Papers
56 See, for example, his contribution to the debate on the throne speech, Debates, November 19, 1940, 224-29. One of his views - in favour of the death penalty for treason - was consistent with his wartime patriotism and anxiety over subversion, but perhaps surprising in light of his later opposition to the death penalty. See the Debates, July 25, 1940, 1938-40.
57 Ibid., January 30, 1942, 180-87
58 Ibid., February 25, 1942, 835-39
59 For Diefenbaker’s speech on amendment of the Mobilization Act to permit, but not to require, compulsory overseas service, see ibid., June 15, 1942, 3329-35.
60 Ibid., July 2, 1942, 3888
61 Ibid., July 2, 1942, 3888-91
62 OC 1, 197
63 Ibid., 199-200. As happens frequently in the memoirs, Diefenbaker personalizes this encounter. But H.A. Bruce reported the outburst, second hand, to Beaverbrook as though it had been an attack on Hanson, or the Conservative caucus, rather than on Diefenbaker: “One day at a private meeting arranged between Mr. Hanson and two of his colleagues with King and four of his Cabinet … he suddenly got into a rage and shouted hysterically, almost in tears - ‘You are always talking about Churchill - What has he done that I have not done. I trust in God, follow my conscience and work day and night,’ and ended by saying, ‘I hate you Hanson, I hate you.’ It is only fair to say that some of his colleagues who were present were heartily ashamed of his exhibition of temper and petulance.” H.A. Bruce to Beaverbrook, June 25, 1941, Bruce Papers
64 OC 1, 200
65 Ibid., 207
66 Ibid., 6, 208. This was a family story told to John by his mother. In the memoirs Diefenbaker refers to the loyal soldier both as his grandfather and his great-grandfather.
67 Pickersgill, Mackenzie King Record 1, 405-06
68 OC 1, 208; Debates, 4782-89
69 Mary F. Diefenbaker to JGD, March 22, 1941,JGDP, V/1, 199-203
70 William T. Diefenbaker to JGD, March 27, 1941, ibid., 82-86
71 William T. Diefenbaker to JGD, March 20, 1941, ibid., 80
72 William T. Diefenbaker to JGD, May 13, 1942, ibid., 356-61
73 Mary F. Diefenbaker to JGD, May 15, 1942, ibid., 367-68
74 Granatstein, Survival, 68-69
75 Ibid., 70-72
76 See Graham, No Surrender, 95
77 Granatstein, Survival, 73-81. Meighen’s words are from a letter to Murdoch MacPherson, August 7, 1941.
78 Graham, No Surrender, 97-107; OC 1, 249-50; Granatstein, Survival, 82-96; JGDI, November 14, 1969
79 Pickersgill, Mackenzie King Record 1, 277-78
80 For the York South campaign, see especially Graham, No Surrender, 107-31; Granatstein, Survival, 94-112.
81 Pickersgill, Mackenzie King Record 1, 348
82 Quoted in OC 7, 251. King’s statement does not app
ear in the House of Commons Debates. But at one point during the evening session the Speaker commented, “There should be less conversation in the chamber … I ask hon. members to refrain,” to which the MP then addressing the House responded: “Apparently the election returns are on the minds of all hon. members rather than what I am trying to say.” As a matter of course, the Debates did not record parliamentary banter. It could be that King said something like this; or perhaps Diefenbaker’s reference in his memoirs is based on King’s own entry in his diary, as it appeared in the Mackenzie King Record. See the Debates, February 9, 1942, 425.
83 Diefenbaker’s emerging vision was reflected later that year in his address accepting nomination at the party’s leadership convention in Winnipeg.
84 Granatstein, Survival, 114-15; Graham, No Surrender, 132
85 Debates, June 10, 1942, 3244; July 2, 1942, 3329-35; Granatstein, Survival, 115-19
86 Granatstein, Survival, 119-25
87 For a detailed account of the conference’s background, genesis, and proceedings, see ibid., 125-35.
88 Ibid., 134
89 Meighen to H.R. Milner, October 17, 1942, quoted in Granatstein, Survival, 135
90 Ibid., 136-37
91 The insight about Meighen’s purpose is that of Roger Graham in his No Surrender, 139.
92 Meighen to Bracken, November 17, 1942, quoted ibid., 142
93 Ibid., 144
94 David J. Walker to JGD, October 10, 1942, JGDP, III/72, 58535
95 “George McG” to JGD, November 20, 1942, ibid., 58546-53
96 Ottawa Citizen, December 8, 1942. The editor of the Winnipeg Free Press, John W. Dafoe, reported his account of the fix (as told to him “right from the horse’s mouth”) in a letter to his Ottawa correspondent Grant Dexter. In his telling, the arrangement involved the withdrawal of Murdoch MacPherson’s candidacy but not those of Diefenbaker and Green, who “wd be allowed to submit their names but the machine wd see to it that their votes did not amount to anything … My informant tells me they think the thing is as good as settled, saving the remote possibility of a blow-up at the convention. Meighen has figured out that there will not be time to organize a bolt, as the delegates will arrive uninformed and will be taken into camp by the managers.” According to Dafoe, MacPherson was furious about this prearrangement. He subsequently decided to repudiate it and accept nomination. J.W. Dafoe to Grant Dexter, November 28, 1942, Dexter Papers
97 “George” to JGD, Monday (undated), JGDP, III/72, 58502-05
98 Granatstein, Survival, 144-46
99 Diefenbaker’s account recalls that David Walker’s remarks were spontaneous and that his words were: “What are you doing here? You’re not a Conservative. You’re just like the camel who got into the Arab’s tent,” and to the audience: “You can boo. You don’t bother me.” OC 1, 254. Walker’s doubts about Diefenbaker’s candidacy meant that he came to Winnipeg prepared to nominate Sidney Smith for the leadership. He remained ready to do so until the last-minute nomination of Bracken, and Smith’s decision not to contest it. The description of Howard Green’s collapse is by Evelyn S. Tufts, quoted in Granatstein, Survival, 147-48. See also Graham, No Surrender, 149-50; Newman, Renegade, 58-59; JGDI, June 27, August 14, 1969.
100 The first quotation is from Evelyn S. Tufts, quoted in Granatstein, Survival, 148; the second is from Newman, Renegade, 59.
101 Convention address (mimeographed),JGDP, III/72, 58506-23
102 Granatstein, Survival, 148-50; Graham, No Surrender, 150-51
103 He said in 1969: “Of course there never was any chance for me being elected. I had no campaign in forty-two whatever. I just turned up, and I had a lot of votes! “JGDI, June 27, 1969
104 But Diefenbaker was lukewarm about the change of party name, which he believed unnecessary - or perhaps irrelevant. He noted that it had previously called itself the Liberal-Conservative Party, the National Liberal-Conservative Party, and the Conservative Party -until 1940, when it campaigned as the National Government Party. “I have always,” he wrote, preferred the name Conservative.” JGDI, June 27, December 11, 1969; Leonard W. Fraser to JGD, December 16, 1942, Donald M. Fleming to JGD, December 18, 1942, JGDP, III/72, 58636-37; OC 1, 254-55
105 OC 1, 254
106 Granatstein, Survival, 153-55; OC 1, 256-57; Pickersgill, Mackenzie King Record 1, 477
107 OC 1, 257. Granatstein writes that “the results of this informal poll are unknown.” Granatstein, Survival, 154
108 JGDI, August 14, 1969. Diefenbaker suggested that Earl Rowe was the leader of “that group from Toronto” who opposed him. He told this story in the aftermath of his 1967 leadership defeat, which may add to its sardonic tone. As with his other defeats, he rationalized this one in retrospect by suggesting that success would mean that “King would have walked all over me,” presumably crushing his prospects for the permanent leadership. In his memoirs he told the same story in somewhat less detail, noting similarly that “Fate moves in its peculiar way.” OC 1, 258. His claim to have displayed his vote for Graydon was substantiated by Rodney Adamson, who wrote in his diary that evening: “At 8.30 Caucus reconvenes and Gordon is chosen leader by one vote over John Diefenbaker. John voted for Gordon and Gordon voted for himself. This is a swell situation.” Rodney Adamson, Diary, January 27, 1943, Adamson Papers; also quoted in Granatstein, Survival, 155
109 See, for example, Mary F. Diefenbaker to JGD, “Just a line to let you know that everything is O.K. only we cant get anything done. The garden is not plowed yet, and the storm windows are still on, and the big man of the house sits on his back bone and wonders, waiting for some one to come and begg to have the work to do. he just sits looking at his hands and saying over and over, my hands has been so bad, so bad. he is going to see the Dr today, and for the life of me I cant see there is anything to trouble about”; also Mary F. Diefenbaker to JGD, March 19 and June 20 (no year), JGDP, V/1, 160-62, 174-76, 189-91.
110 William T. Diefenbaker to JGD, March 14, 1944, ibid., 118-23
111 Mary F. Diefenbaker to JGD, March 19 (no year), ibid., 189-91
112 Mary F. Diefenbaker to JGD, April 19, 1944, ibid., 391-93
113 Mary F. Diefenbaker to JGD, May 2 (1944), ibid., 394-96
114 JGD to Elmer Diefenbaker, May 5, 1944, JGDP, V/3, 1456. The incident is also described in Robertson, More, 236-37.
115 Incomplete traces of this incident, and of Elmer’s military career, appear in the Diefenbaker Papers, but there are no references to it in any remaining correspondence from either John or Elmer Diefenbaker. In 1946 Elmer was granted a 5 percent disability pension for partial deafness, which was increased in 1964 to a rate of 30 percent disability ($54 per month) and in 1966 to 40 percent (or $80 per month). The previous pattern of John’s care for Elmer suggests that he acted for Elmer in seeking the pension. JGDP, V/43, 28796-945
116 “Certified Copy of Registration of Death,” March 22, 1945, JGDP, V/14, 9309
117 What follows is based upon evidence in the Diefenbaker Papers, the Adamson Papers, the Bruce Papers, Holt, Other, and Robertson, More.
118 See, for example, Mary F. Diefenbaker to JGD, February 8 [1942], in which she comments: “Glad to hear Edna was feeling so much better.” JGDP, V/1, 326-30
119 In February 1941, for example, their mutual friend and fellow MP Rodney Adamson recorded in his diary that “Mrs. Diefenbaker is soothed down over dinner at Government House.” Diary, February 19, 1943, Adamson Papers
120 Sheila Brower told Holt that Diefenbaker could not distinguish green from brown, and thus needed help coordinating the colours of his clothing. Holt, Other, 249; Robertson, More, 236
121 See Holt, Other, 183-84
122 Diary, May 13, 1942, Adamson Papers. Adamson recorded the intimacies of his own life in the diary with unusual frankness; he was one of the Diefenbakers’ close friends and seemed to have no conceivable reason for commenting inaccurately about what Edna told him.
123 Ibid., May 21, 1943
124 Ibid., F
ebruary 7, 1944
125 This episode is related in Holt, Other, 242-50. It is based on Holt’s interviews with Sheila Brower, Priscilla McCloy, Virginia O’Brien, and Dorothy Fraser.
126 Ibid., 250-51. Clyne Harradence also mentions this incident in his oral history interview for the Diefenbaker Centre. JGDP, XVIII/OH/45, November 17, 1985
127 Howland’s first letter in the Diefenbaker files is dated July 10, 1945, but he begins it by commenting that “I think we are becoming regular correspondents.” A telegram and a second letter remain, dated respectively in July 1945 and on February 27, 1946. According to Holt, Diefenbaker’s secretary in Prince Albert received correspondence in the office about Edna’s illness in this period, and recalls that Diefenbaker sometimes destroyed such letters. JGDP, V/10, 9139-40, 9145; Holt, Other, 256-63
128 Dr Goldwin W. Howland to JGD, July 10, 1945, JGDP, V/10, 9140. In this letter Howland does not offer a diagnosis, but in a letter of February 1946 he writes of “an extreme case of an obsession.” The electroconvulsive therapy she received in that month - a short series of five treatments - suggested a diagnosis of mild rather than severe depression, or some other relatively mild mental condition. It is not clear from the available record why Howland described this as one of his “hardest cases.” Dr Goldwin W. Howland to JGD, February 27, 1946, ibid., 9145
129 See below, Edna to JGD (undated), from Homewood Sanitarium.
130 JGD to Edna Diefenbaker, April 25, 1945, JGDP, V/10, 7076. Newsreels of the audience at the opening ceremony show Diefenbaker in the audience, glowing in self-awareness.
131 Goldwin W. Howland to JGD, July 10, 1945, JGDP, V/10, 9140
132 Diefenbaker was apparently planning to see Edna soon after this letter, but later in the month Howland wired him to suggest that he should postpone a visit until August 1. Telegram, Dr Goldwin W. Howland to JGD, July 20, 1945, JGDP, V/10, 9139
133 Wilson, Diefenbaker, 172
134 Dr Goldwin W. Howland to JGD, July 10, 1945, JGDP, V/10, 9140
135 Electro shock therapy, or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), was a controversial treatment for a range of mental disorders including schizophrenia and depression, introduced in Italy in 1938 and widely practised in North America by the mid-1940s. The treatment consisted of short bursts of electric current applied through electrodes on the temples to induce convulsions. Patients were given muscle relaxants and anesthetized before treatment. They suffered varying degrees of memory loss, but usually recovered memory over time. ECT was used in varying clinical circumstances and without generally accepted controls, more frequently in private psychiatric hospitals than in public ones. The records of its success tended at this time to be anecdotal and impressionist rather than scientific. There were immediate and continuing questions over its long-term effects, both beneficial and damaging, and over the ethics involved in its use. Since its physical effects were unknown, and its psychological effects unpredictable, the use of ECT on humans was, in effect, a dubious form of experimentation. The practice later came under intensive critical study among psychiatrists. By the 1970s, despite more limited and controlled application, it remained a subject of professional controversy. See, for example, Electroconvulsive Therapy: Task Force Report 14 (American Psychiatric Association, September 1978); Peter Roger Breggin, Electro-Shock: Its Brain-Disabling Effects.